Questioning turfgrass research
9 Mar, 2010 By: Jim Novak, Turfgrass Producers International Athletic Turf News
Writing this column is extremely difficult because the subject matter is somewhat sensitive in nature. On one hand, we don’t want to discourage the efforts of university researchers; call into question the integrity of a university, or call to task those involved in the peer reviewing process. On the other hand, when a series of questionable events begin to transpire and one senses a seeming position of denial, it is best that someone speaks-up.
Perhaps a few questions at the outset will put things in perspective.
What is the responsibility of researchers, a university, peer reviewers or even the media relations department of a university when a research study that has been approved and published gets international media attention, and then is found to contain admitted miscalculations? And what if any responsibility do they have to withdraw known misinformation until the correct information can be posted? Should the incorrect information remain posted for a few days, a few weeks or even a month?
The research in question is the now-controversial, Amy Townsend-Small and Claudia Czimczik (University of California - Irvine) study titled “Carbon Sequestration and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Urban Turf," which was peer-reviewed by the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
The initial press release on the UCI study was posted and circulated on Jan. 19, 2010. Within 48 hours, the research conclusions (which suggested turfgrass maintenance generated more carbon than that which is stored by turfgrass) was being reported worldwide.
On Jan. 27 and 28, at least two independent parties involved in turfgrass research contacted the authors of the study to report errors they found in the study’s calculations. Shortly thereafter, the Media Relations Department at UCI received separate requests from Turfgrass Producers International, the National Turfgrass Federation, and the USGA – Green Section to pull the release from the UCI website until the miscalculations were corrected. These requests were denied.
As more PhD turfgrass research scientists and recognized researchers who understand the dynamics of turfgrass science began to take a deeper look at the study, more troubling questions began to arise — above and beyond the matter of miscalculations. Comments from those reviewing the study expressed a concern regarding the methodology, generalizations, apparent assumptions and the lack of important data for such a study to reach a valid conclusion.
These are just a few of the many candid comments we have received from turfgrass research scientists who have reviewed the Townsend-Small/Czimczik study:
- “Too many assumptions and potentials in their statements.”
- “Bad science on their part.”
- “The journal has a responsibility to publish science, not conjecture.”
- “All my results can prove that N2O does come from fertilizer applied to turf but when properly applied, emission is small.”
- “If my conversion is correct, that would be 15 lbs N per 1000 ft2 per year!”
- “This is very sloppy science.”
- “This would have never made it through peer review in any of the American Society of Agronomy journals.”
- “It really bothers me that shoddy science like this can make it into 'scientific journals' and to the public press.”
- “It is an example of conclusions based on bad science.”
- “It’s bad enough that the peer reviewers did not find or report the errors to the authors, but when informed, the university media people went on to disseminate the information.”
- “The paper extends the invalid results to turfgrass lawns across the US. The test sites and modeling used appear to be atypical of most turfgrass lawns in the US, and thus the interpretations applied broadly are not valid.”
The above comments were not made by self-righteous activists, uninformed individuals with their own agenda or weekend bloggers, but rather some of the nation’s leading and most respected turfgrass research scientists who were, for the most part, unaware of what others had to say about the content of the Townsend-Small/Czimczik study.
As of this writing, the negative conclusions of the released study have generated worldwide coverage. For example, the original UCI press release was picked up by The EPOCH Times, which publishes in 17 languages in 33 countries across five continents. Their opening headline and copy read:
Pollution from Keeping Lawns –
“Turfgrass lawns are not environmentally friendly, according to recent research by Dr. Amy Townsend-Small and Dr. Claudia Czimczik of the University of California, Irvine.”
Turfgrass Producers International was finally advised on March 4 that UCI had sent out a corrected press release dated Feb. 18. However, that press release was all too similar in content to the original in that it stated the same questionable conclusions:
- “Urban 'green' spaces may contribute to global warming, UCI study finds.”
- “Turfgrass management can create more greenhouse gas than plants remove from atmosphere”
- “Dispelling the notion that urban 'green' spaces help counteract greenhouse gas emissions, new research has found — in Southern California, at least — that total emissions might be lower if lawns did not exist.”
- “…the carbon-storing benefits of lawns can be counteracted by greenhouse gas emissions."
- "It's unlikely for these lawns to act as net greenhouse gas sinks because too much energy is used to maintain them," Townsend-Small concluded.”
Miscalculations aside, it soon became apparent to turfgrass PhDs that several things were amiss in the Townsend-Small/Czimczik turfgrass/carbon research study that would dramatically alter the conclusion:
- Soil Organic Carbon Sampling Too Shallow
- Species Composition Not Reported
- Mowing Height Not Reported
- Soil Series and Taxonomic Classification Are Needed
- Soil Nutrient Description Not Reported
- Potential Adverse Soil Chemistry Not Reported
- Actual Nitrogen Inputs Not Reported
- Unrealistic Nitrogen Application Model
- High Rate of Nitrogen Applied
- Assumes Nitrogen Flux is Uniform Throughout a 24-Hour Day
- Incorrect Soil Moisture Interpretation
- Initial Soil Properties Not Documented
- Replication of Test Sites Unclear
- Assumes Results Apply Broadly To U.S. Lawns
Within the next few weeks, The Lawn Institute will be submitting a detailed assessment (based on a peer review by leading turfgrass research scientists) on the above-mentioned issues and will provide an explanation of each to Townsend-Small/Czimczik, the University of California (Irvine) and the American Geophysical Union (AGU).
What is most disturbing about the series of events that have transpired since the Townsend-Small/Czimczik study was originally released isn’t just the questionable conclusions the study reached, but rather, how they were reached, how the material was reviewed and why misinformation and assumptions are still circulating.
Please send any technical comments or questions to our webmaster.